Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Tobin
_Emeritus
Posts: 8417
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Tobin »

Runtu wrote:I've been amused, though not surprised, at some of the defensive and hostile reactions among apologists. This is an interesting find because it provides context for the production or translation of the Book of Mormon. it's bizarre that so many people seem to be terrified of the implications of this find.
Terrified?!? Terrified of what exactly? The only apologists, who might have a problem, are those that were championing using the English phrasing of the Book of Mormon to prove the English translation was anything other than a 19th century production. Clearly, books like this show that is not the case and turns off the lights on that rather silly line of thought.
"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom
_Always Changing
_Emeritus
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Always Changing »

Bazooka wrote:
I'm missing the connection?.......Whoops, I forgot....you were there and took the blame!

Yep. I was there and I dunnit. T'was a fraud and a bunch of hogwash.

Thanks, Bazooka, for reminding me. It was such a long time ago-----I must be getting a trifle senile. Gotta make meself some cake and pudding.
Problems with auto-correct:
In Helaman 6:39, we see the Badmintons, so similar to Skousenite Mormons, taking over the government and abusing the rights of many.
_Fence Sitter
_Emeritus
Posts: 8862
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Fence Sitter »

beastie wrote:Here's my meandering thoughts on that subject.

We know that something happened to result in expedited dictation of the Book of Mormon with the arrival of Oliver Cowdery. Is it possible that OC brought with him a copy of the Late War, and hence exposed Joseph Smith to it at that point? Prior to his exposure to the Late War, the text he may have read on his own Napoleon, had the most influence.


I don't think we even have to speculate that OC exposed Joseph Smith. It could have been as simple as OC showing up with the Late War and he and Joseph Smith deciding to use that as a basis for the Book of Mormon. The 116 pages were conveniently lost to give them a reason to start over. This way O.C. & Joseph Smith are willing participants in the production rather than put O.C. and Joseph Smith at odds from the beginning.

Seriously the 116 pages story has so many holes in it that it appears as a blatant fabrication. Why not simple ask Harris to copy what ever portion he wanted to take to show his wife? Why would Joseph Smith allow the only copy he had to leave his possession? When they finished the Book of Mormon the first thing they did was make a copy.
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Equality »

Bazooka wrote:But the apologists can see the problems inherent in accepting this type of influence:
1. The book was written by ancient Prophets and Joseph was specifically given things to effect an accurate translation. He was to read the plates looking through the Urim & Thummin which would show him the words to use. If 19th century influence crept in then the U&T were a bit leaky.
2. The witnesses to the translation method (mostly) stated that God gave Joseph the exact words to use via a rock in a hat and he wasn't allowed to move on till it had been scribed accurately. If 19th century influence crept in then the witness statements, and therefore the witnesses themselves, cannot be trusted. Which in turns invalidates the signed testimony statements in the front of the Book of Mormon.
3. If Joseph, despite all the other documentary statements, was allowed to loosely translate using themes, words, phrases etc from his 19th century environment, then it can hardly be considered a translation of a book written by ancient Prophets who lived in the America's two thousand years earlier.
4. Credible proof of 19th century influence adds credence to the argument that there are things in the Book of Mormon that weren't in the America's during the relevant time frame, such as horses etc. If 19th century influence has interjected spurious items into the narrative, the book really cannot claimed to be what it is claimed to be. Instead it drifts into the section marked 'fiction'.

They are a bit panic stricken and I think they have just cause.

I agree that the findings about The Late War strike yet another blow to the notion that the Book of Mormon was a "tight" translation, but that theory had suffered damage long before this latest salvo was launched by the Johnson brothers. Might this latest development serve to resurrect Ostler's Expansion Theory? (Obviously, there are problems with any apologetic explanation that requires a divine hand in the creation of the Book of Mormon, but it seems like some form of "loose" translation theory gives them more wiggle room than a "tight" translation).
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
_Always Changing
_Emeritus
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 6:17 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Always Changing »

Seriously the 116 pages story has so many holes in it that it appears as a blatant fabrication. Why not simple ask Harris to copy what ever portion he wanted to take to show his wife? Why would Joseph Smith allow the only copy he had to leave his possession?


I think Joseph had long before learned that every lie, in order to be believed, has to have some truth in it.

It makes sense. Everyone knew that our marriage was in trouble, and I would probably get angry at just another hare-brained plot to make money. It WAS rubbish, you know. The rest of the book is much better.

But the replacement portion is still limited in the number of sources. Something happened with the pipeline of ideas/material.
Problems with auto-correct:
In Helaman 6:39, we see the Badmintons, so similar to Skousenite Mormons, taking over the government and abusing the rights of many.
_Equality
_Emeritus
Posts: 3362
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:44 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Equality »

ElGuapo wrote:However, if the source books aren't "strewn about" and referenced during the writing, that does seem to point to multiple authorship. Otherwise you wouldn't expect to see Late War impacting the later chapters and Napoleon influencing the small plates portion.

Excellent point. Edibles for rumination.
"The Church is authoritarian, tribal, provincial, and founded on a loosely biblical racist frontier sex cult."--Juggler Vain
"The LDS church is the Amway of religions. Even with all the soap they sell, they still manage to come away smelling dirty."--Some Schmo
_Runtu
_Emeritus
Posts: 16721
Joined: Sun Nov 05, 2006 5:06 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Runtu »

Tobin wrote:Terrified?!? Terrified of what exactly? The only apologists, who might have a problem, are those that were championing using the English phrasing of the Book of Mormon to prove the English translation was anything other than a 19th century production. Clearly, books like this show that is not the case and turns off the lights on that rather silly line of thought.


I don't know what they're terrified of, hence my statement that I find it slightly amusing but rather bizarre. This may be a first (though maybe not) but if I understand you correctly, I agree: it's more difficult to use the English wording to find evidence of antiquity when you have a contemporary source doing essentially the same thing. I've always found that line of apologetics a bit iffy.
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington
_Fifth Columnist
_Emeritus
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Fifth Columnist »

I believe Dan Vogel has said Joseph would have spent 6 hours on average dictating the Book of Mormon each day. If that is the case, what was he doing the rest of the time? Most likely thinking about things he had read, generating themes and story lines that he tested using the method in D&C 9 (making up ideas, seeing if his bosom burns so he knows the ideas are correct, etc.). I think it is almost beyond question that Joseph Smith was reading the Bible during the down time and possibly other books such as the Late War. I don't think this means he copied the Late War, but if he was reading it, those ideas and phrases could easily creep into the words he dictated.
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Uncle Ed »

Darth J wrote:
Speaking of specious, it does not follow that if someone fails to believe in Joseph Smith, one is necessarily an atheist.

Your vaunted brilliance, nay "genius level" cognitive powers are either exaggerated or weary. You need to catch yourself as you are guilty of the crap you accuse others of.

The existence of hundreds of millions of people who believe in a deity or deities irrespective of Joseph Smith bears that out. There is simply no reasonable way you could gather I must be an atheist from anything I said.

Do tell.

It is reasonable when someone disparages the major religions of the world in a single sentence, after being particular about the evils of Mormonism's founder, that s/he might just be an atheist. Steve Benson is very vocal about it.

...
In the meantime, not a single thing you've said is responsive to the OP.

Of course it isn't, to one who doesn't read long responses with any intention of applying comprehension.

God Is Existence, ergo God "wrote" (came up with) the Book of Mormon, and Darth J for that matter, now there's an intriguing concept.

What is existence, Darth J?...
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
_Uncle Ed
_Emeritus
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:47 am

Re: Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

Post by _Uncle Ed »

Quasimodo wrote:
Uncle Ed wrote: I KNOW that "God Exists", because Existence is inarguable. I know that "God" is manifesting as me, because, well, here I AM, after all. Beyond that much, I hardly have a clue, and expect that comparatively I never will amount to more than that.


It might be fair to say that we exist because we are having this conversation (I think René Descartes had something to say about that). I don't think that is enough evidence for you to say that you "know" God exists. You only believe that God exists. You are only pretending to know.

Your (or my) existence does not, in any way, imply the existence of God. If you would like to replace the word "know" with "believe" that might work.

The same with saying you "know" that God is manifesting as you. It's a bit of a stretch. It's fine to say you believe that, but you will have to show some proof to say you know it and convince others.

Even the simple things that people "know" are often not true.

Everyone sees the sun rise. It doesn't, the world turns toward it.

Everyone knows which way is up or down, east or west, but the words are actually meaningless unless related to the exact spot where you are standing on earth.

Everyone knows that their desk top is solid, but there is much more empty space there than there are molecules.

How much easier is it to be wrong about God than these obvious things? If you have objective proof that there is a God then please share it. Otherwise, it's just your belief.

Existence Is the proof for "God". Existence is not caused. Everything manifesting as part of "creation", i.e. the world of humans (the universe) is Existence manifesting.

If this is not true, then how about taking a stab at answering the question, "what is existence?"...
A man should never step a foot into the field,
But have his weapons to hand:
He knows not when he may need arms,
Or what menace meet on the road. - Hávamál 38

Man's joy is in Man. - Hávamál 47
Post Reply